Back From South Africa, Shaw Against Divestment

WASHINGTON — When he talked with the white leaders of South Africa`s apartheid regime, Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. flashed back to the Jim Crow era of the American South.

``I kept thinking they were like white people back in Alabama or even Florida 30 or 40 years ago,`` Shaw said. ``I kept getting flashbacks of the racial fears and strict separation in our own country`s past. I remembered how people in Miami once got so upset when (white congressman) Claude Pepper danced with a black woman.

``South Africa seems a lot like that today.``

Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale, returned to his Washington office this week with the conclusion Congress should ``go a little further`` toward opposing South Africa`s racist system of government yet firmly opposed to withdrawal of American investments.

``Pulling out of South Africa would be a simplistic, knee-jerk reaction that would put a lot of (black) folks out of work,`` Shaw said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., returned from his own trip last week convinced that Congress should step up economic pressure to force reforms on South Africa.

Both trips stirred controversies. Both men came back with the same opinions as their respective hosts.

Their opposite conclusions foreshadow the liberal and conservative ends of political controversies expected to come up this year in Congress on American policy toward South Africa.

Congress will be asked to consider various forms of economic sanctions against South Africa, which gets about $2.6 billion of American investments amounting to about 3 percent of its gross national product.

``We can`t resolve all the problems around the world, but we should make sure the United States government is not helping and financing apartheid,`` Kennedy told reporters upon returning to Washington.

Shaw, who was ``debriefed`` at the State Department this week about his 12- day-trip, said in an interview American divestment ``would only hurt the very people we`re trying to help.``

Shaw and three other conservative congressmen traveled to South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe courtesy of private business interests -- primarily the South African Foundation -- which oppose apartheid but promote the image of the country and fiercely opposes the divestment movement in the United States.

Critics claim the foundation is merely an apologist organization for the government trying to manipulate Congress and American opinion.

``The trip by the four Republicans is the kind of thing that gives black Africans the appearance that all Americans are working in alliance with the South African government and apartheid,`` said David Scott, a lobbyist for TransAfrica, which organized anti-apartheid protests in Washington.

Scott said such trips, along with the Reagan administration`s ``constructive engagement`` policy of friendly persuasion toward South Africa, were partly responsible for black protests against Kennedy. In the minds of some black Africans, all Americans are being lumped into the same image of capitalistic and colonial oppressors, Scott said.

Kennedy was the guest of Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate and leading critic of apartheid. Kennedy`s trip was paid through a combination of private and taxpayer money, according to Andrea Young of Kennedy`s staff.

Young said Kennedy is trying to round up a bipartisan proposal that would impose some form of economic sanctions. One possible bill would prohibit American investments in South Africa unless the government demonstrates some progress on human rights reforms.

Shaw said Congress should consider such a proposal, though he generally opposed the concept of economic sanctions. An alternative, he said, would prohibit American companies in South Africa from discriminating against black employees or failing to provide proper housing.

``Congress needs to make some kind of statement that would give encouragement to South Africa to get rid of apartheid,`` he said.

Stronger measures, Shaw said, would only alienate white South Africans, and withdrawal of American companies would remove a ``positive model.``

``The foreign minister told us the far right is actually growing now, partly in a reaction to the reforms that have already been made,`` Shaw said. ``Any quick movement would only strengthen the far right. The thing is, short of revolution, you`ve got to work through the government that exists.``

Some opponents of the government told Shaw they would rather see the American companies depart and the government fall, even if it means worse conditions for blacks in the short term.

``The thing is, South Africa`s mineral wealth, with its gold and diamonds, is so great that there`s no way we could bring the country to its knees even by cutting off all our money,`` Shaw said.

He said many black Africans from surrounding nations go to work in the gold mines of South Africa because economic conditions are worse in their own countries.

Shaw toured Mozambique and Zimbabwe under sponsorship of business groups opposed to their leftist governments. ``In Mozambique, the shops were empty, illiteracy was 95 percent, a former luxurious resort area was in total decay,`` he said.

Whites are leaving Zimbabwe, the former Rhodesia, but ``it`s an example of a government that`s been through difficulties but is still trying,`` Shaw said.

His and Kennedy`s trips both indicated that there are no quick fixes to South Africa`s repressive form of government, Shaw said.

``I do not see much prospect for a one-man, one-vote system, unless it is done through violence,`` Shaw said.

``Certainly nothing short of equality should be ever be considered fully acceptable to us.``